Gear of the Year 2017 - Dan's choice: Sony a9

It's been fascinating to watch the rise of mirrorless cameras over the course of my 7+ years writing about digital photography. And Sony in particular has been fun to watch as they've lead the mirrorless charge in terms of sensor size and resolution.

I’ll never forget the moment the Sony NEX-7 was unveiled in a pre-launch briefing in 2011 - it was the first time I truly craved a mirrorless body - the publication I worked for at the time even named it 'Camera of the Year'. Up until that point mirrorless still felt like something of a novelty: a nice option for amateurs craving a small, light ILC alternative to a DSLR, but certainly not a replacement for one, especially for those 'serious' about their photography.

It's often been Sony in particular making the mirrorless cameras I'm most eager to get my hands on.

As the mirrorless market continued to take off and cameras like the original Sony a7 were unveiled, my interest in what originally seemed like a niche continued to grow. And while a lot of brands have contributed serious innovation to the mirrorless market, it's been Sony in particular making the mirrorless cameras I'm most eager to get my hands on - an opinion not shared by all my colleagues, mind you.

But time and time again I found my expectations of shooting a Sony mirrorless camera never quite matched the reality of using the product. For instance, when it came to the Sony a7, sure it packed a full-frame sensor in a super compact mirrorless body - something that'd never been done, but the user interface of the camera, to put it simply, felt unfinished. This led to an overly frustrating shooting experience.

To make matters worse, many of Sony's early mirrorless UI stumbling points were uniquely their own: slow startup times, vague error messages, and batteries draining while the camera's shut off were problems other manufacturers had long since addressed (not to mention poor battery life). And while no one has the perfect menus, Sony's have historically been the most cluttered and confusing.

But time and time again I found my expectations of shooting a Sony mirrorless camera never quite matched the reality of using the product.

For years, early Sony mirrorless adopters defended their decision to go all-in citing that, eventually, you do get used to the annoying UI and find workarounds. And indeed I'm sure they did. But a good camera shouldn't force you to work around it: it should work with you. And as the Sony a7 II-series came to market, it seemed clear the brand was intent on fixing a lot of these issues and shaking its image as the camera brand with bad UI.

And then came the Sony a9

But it wasn't until the release of the Alpha 9 this year, that a Sony camera has felt as refined in use as it DSLR counterparts. A year early, the Sony a6500 came pretty close to hitting this mark, but it's the Sony a9 that's finally won me over as a whole-hearted mirrorless believer.

Make no mistake, the a9 is meant to compete against the likes of the flagship Nikon D5 and Canon EOS 1D X Mark II. What it lacks in built-in vertical grip, it makes up for in a faster burst (20 fps on the Sony, 14 fps on the Canon and 12 fps on the Nikon). But it has more appeal to me than as just a sports camera.

The a9 is a sports camera, but that doesn't mean it isn't also well-suited for shooting candids. In fact it's flip-out touchscreen is perfect for discreetly focusing on a subject.ISO 100 | 1/640 sec | F5.6

For me, the mark of a truly good camera is one you find yourself reaching for regardless of the assignment or subject matter. Since the a9 landed in our office, it's been a camera that I've found myself grabbing for both static and moving subjects. Because as well-suited as it might be for sports photography, it's also a great street photography camera with lenses like the FE 28mm F2 attached. I find that using the flip-out touchscreen to select a point of focus is a great way to shoot candids.

Since the a9 landed in our office, its a camera that I've found myself grabbing for both static and moving subjects.

I recently took a trip to Jackson, Wyoming where I expected to shoot a mix of wildlife, landscapes and video, and found myself bringing the a9 because it offered a fast burst rate with good AF, 4K video without any heavy crop factor and excellent dynamic range. But moreover, I packed it because it is a camera I enjoy shooting with and can, with some time spent, customize to complement my shooting style perfectly.

I picked the Sony a9 for a once in a lifetime trip to Jackson, Wyoming because of its small size, dynamic range, 4K video and burst speed.ISO 50 | 1/640 sec | F8

That's a big step forward for Sony. They've long made cameras that out-spec'ed the competition but for me personally, were not enjoyable to use. But the a9's menus have been overhauled and are less confusing, its also responsive (starts up fast) and rarely throws confusing errors messages. These may sound like little things, but they add up to vastly more pleasant shooting experience compared to Sonys of years past.

I packed it because it is a camera I enjoy shooting with.

Improvements like a new, larger capacity battery that doesn't self-drain, gave me more confidence in grabbing the Sony for what was likely a once in a lifetime shooting excursion. Plus, compared to a D5 or 1D X II, the a9 is a much smaller lighter camera to pack. And its in-body + lens stabilization allows me the flexibility to shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds and avoid lugging a tripod around. This was something that mattered to me as I was to do a lot of hiking in Jackson.

These bison may be nursing, and therefore stationary, but they can run at speeds up to 40 MPH. Good thing the Sony a9 can shoot at 20 fps. ISO 100 | 1/500 sec | F5.6

Where Sony can go from here

The Sony a9, and its recently-released cousin, the Sony a7R III are both exceptional cameras. I used to hesitate to pick up a Sony camera; with this recent generation, no longer. That said, there are still some areas these cameras could improve to truly leave their DSLR pals in the dust, specifically: weather-sealing and subject tracking.

'Nikon's 3D Tracking is still superior to Sony's Lock-on AF for subject tracking.'

The Sony a9 is dust and moisture resistant to certain degree, but the lack of robust rubber gaskets on the ports, SD card and battery doors does not lead me to trust its ability to survive shooting in conditions such as a lacrosse game in torrential downpours - I'd be much more comfortable grabbing a Nikon D5 of Canon 1D X II.

The same goes for any assignment/circumstance were nailing focus on the shot is mission critical: Nikon's 3D Tracking is still superior to Sony's Lock-on AF for subject tracking.

There are some other minor grievances I have with the a9, like the inability to enter menus while the buffer clears. Another: the omission of video gamma and color modes found in most other Sony cameras. But these are all things that can easily be added/improved in the next generation. And if there is one thing I've learned covering Sony's camera technology, it's that the brand listens to customers and industry feedback.

It's no secret that Sony is hungry for a piece of the professional sports photography market, eager to get mirrorless cameras on the sidelines of the Olympics and Super Bowl. And with the Sony a9, there's compelling reason to at least acknowledge Sony as a legit player. I think it will take a few more generations of cameras for Sony to blow past the competition, giving pros a concrete reason to consider switching. But if they keep moving in the direction they have been, I see no reason why more and more pros wouldn't give them a chance.

So for winning me over and being the first Sony mirrorless camera I truly love shooting with, the a9 is my pick for 2017 gear of the year.

You are certainly right about the A9's menus being a big improvement on their previous cameras. The A7RIII has many improvements over the A9 though. Features like being able to group all frames of a continuous burst would have even more relevance for the A9 than the A7RIII. I really hope that Sony updates the A9 menus in firmware to match the A7RIII, it would significantly improve the camera and make it much easier to use the two models side by side.

While it is true that Sony is listening to it's user base to design upcoming cameras, it is the worst camera company I have had experience with for passing on the newly developed features as firmware updates for older models. The A9 is not a cheap camera, I really hope Sony breaks tradition and gives us the excellent A7RIII menus in a firmware update ASAP. The ability to globally backup camera settings to a card or computer would be just as welcome.

Really no issue in compressed RAW that effectively cuts file size in half, except in 1% photos of evening cityscape on building with bright edges and then if you lift shadow several stop, still only pixel-peeping can see the artifacts.

I can't comprehend why more RAW options are bad. If you don't like compressed, then switch to uncompressed. Simple. And for the record, as someone who shoots full-time and having used Canon, Nikon, and now Sony for my daily work, the Sony A9's out-of-camera Jpegs win in quality, with Nikon being a close second. I respect your opinion that Olympus Jpegs are your favorite, but the last time I checked, Olympus doesn't have a body that can compete with the A9, 1DXII or D5 on the sports/journalism front, which is what the A9 was designed for.

Sony already did that option in A7r II, A7 II, A7s II before A9. Just wish Sony will develop a loseless compressed format as Canikon did.

But really in 99% of my shooting I default to compress format as really you cannot tell difference and effectively cut file sizes to half, except in 1% of shooting in evening cityscape on buildings with bright edges that your photos are severely underexposed and then you lift shadow several stops back. Still in that scenario you have to pixel peeping to see minor artifacts.

If that makes you more secure, go right ahead and suppose that. However I stand by my conclusions, and I like the Sony A9.

To answer the question: Why try so many cameras?

For my purposes I'm looking for usable higher ISO capacity, which the Sony A9 most certainly has--the Nikon D5 is a bit better.

I'm also looking for improvements in optical quality. As you likely know, yes lenses have vastly improved for sharpness/clarity. However even most good Fuji lenses still lack the colour subtly of better Leica and Zeiss. And colour quality is very important to me.

Now, there are surprises regards lenses. Samsung being by far the biggest surprise. And Nikon+Sigma have clearly started to figure out what Zeiss and Leica have known about for 100 years. So that's an interesting improvement to see developing.

>>>Now, there are surprises regards lenses. Samsung being by far the biggest surprise. And Nikon+Sigma have clearly started to figure out what Zeiss and Leica have known about for 100 years. So that's an interesting improvement to see developing.<<<

I'am renting this camera now before i decide to buy and i can say that it has every thing i wished a camera should have.The biggest advantage for me is silent shooting under all conditions without black out in de viewfinder and the fast and accurate af, even with open lens (1.4) and dark situations. Nothing to complain, except the price.

I have had the A9 since its launch and I just got the A7RIII. I agree that the A9 is a more groundbreaking camera, it also offers more complete ergonomics. However the A7RIII is about the sensor, the IQ, leaving to the A9 exclusively the advantage of shear speed and a more usable e-shutter. For most the A7RIII will be a more compelling camera, and it is the one at this point I would pick up first. I do am glad to own both and given the size I generally do not actually need to choose one but easy to carry both with two different compact prime lenses :-)

If anyone is interested in the opinion of a full-time sports and news shooter (me):

For 20 years I shot Canon & Nikon. The A9 specs were too good to ignore so I bought one & the 70-200 & 24-70. IMO the A9 outperforms any other DSLR I've used. It's so good for sports, using it almost feels like cheating.

I didn't think I'd like the feel of a smaller body in my hands but after getting used to it I'm hooked. I used one of my D4 bodies to shoot hockey last week and I only lasted half a period before I found myself diving into my bag to get my A9.

Weather sealing: I covered Hurricane Harvey, spending four days shooting with it in the rain. The camera was *wet* every day & it never flinched. I can vouch for its seals.

It does take some getting used to because the AF system is so fundamentally different. It took me a few days to figure out which settings worked best for me when covering different sports. But once I got it dialed in... So good.

@PeakAction"using it almost feels like cheating" that was exactly my feeling and my comment with other photographers. I found that especially true with the sharp light and agile 100-400 lens shooting sports."It does take some getting used to because the AF system is so fundamentally different."I completely agree here too. With Canon and Nikon you can just pick up a camera and start shooting. I needed to test the A9 over and over and over to get confident with its AF, but once you have it, boy is it ever good!

It is important to keep the protective tab for the flash shoe in place in wet weather. Others have said moisture inside the flash shoe can damage or fault the EVF. Having endured a Seattle weather during Thanksgiving week, I can attest that there were no problems from occasional drizzle with the shoe cover in place. I didn't tempt fate to find otherwise. The lens, a 24-70/2.8 GM is fully sealed.

some great images - and always good to hear from a pro sports shooter using the A9.Personally i'd love to change over to the A9 for my sports shooting (currently use a7rii for landscapes and portraits) - however long glass (Still waiting for that 400mm for a while by the looks) and budget (cost of 2x A9's and Gmaster glass) mean its currently a no-go.Once there is a 2nd hand market and some long glass options I'll re-assess.

@lonewolf1983 I too am anxiously waiting for the 400/2.8 to fill that huge hole in my field sports wish list. I got the 100-400 in the mean time just so I could have a long lens, and I must say that it's better than I thought it would be. It focuses very quickly and is very sharp. It even works well for shooting NBA from the elevated position. My exposure in the AT&T Center in San Antonio, which has very nice new LED lamps, mind you, is ISO 4000 at 1/1000 f5.6. On the floor, though, the 70-200 is very much the king. The 100-400 doesn't do as well with up-close fast focus changes like you get under the basket. Great for down-court action though. It's also really nice as a long lens for shooting hockey from the glass because it fits in the photo holes.

Everyone keeps saying how its "Crushes" the 5DMKIV or the D850, yet they keep forgetting to mention the $1300+ price difference... I am not saying its not a good camera but for $4500 of course it beats out the Canon & Nikon.

^Can you actual see those differences between 32mp & 42mp on a 12x18 print, a 1080x1920 monitor or even a 2k monitor or cell phone screen? NO you cant, our eyes literally cant see the difference, zoomed 300% in on a photo in photoshop checking each pixel doesn't matter. That is not real world. Canon Nikon full frames already print the size of billboards with perfect detail. Its like having a V12 engine over a V8, sure there is more power but it is completely over kill & you sacrifice handling & acceleration. Canon & Nikon didnt sacrifice anything to "Win" in one aspect of camera specs.

The Nikon D850 is a superb camera, which I would choose over the D5, Canon 1Div, or 5Div any day for my needs. However the A9 is a world apart in terms of agility. Point-Lock-Shoot in the blink of an eye. Focus is with the diaphragm closed, so no focus shift, no need for the diaphragm to close. The EVF gives 100% live view, without a tripod, nor holding the camera at arm's length.

Most of all, the higher-end Sony/Zeiss lenses have no match with Nikon lenses, and are sharp from corner to corner, wide open. Remember, Nikon lenses can be compared directly to other lenses on a Sony A7/A9 camera. That's why there are no Nikon (or Leica) lenses in my bag.

I dare say that most people who can afford a BMW or Jaguar do not have the skill to drive them properly. That does not diminish their performance and desirability. Sad the day I realized the car of my dreams was a minivan.

Just in case anyone believes the rubbish you wrote above, it makes no difference that the A9 switches to 12 bit raw in continuous drive because the camera does not offer more than 12 EV of dynamic range in the first place. Neither do the D5 or 1DXII. These are not cameras to choose if you want to maximise DR.

As for the camera being too small for what it's designed to do, it's virtually the same size and weight as the Nikon F3 which I don't recall caused any problems to the thousands of professionals who owned and used it.

I have hundreds of raws from both bodies, for the A9 both e-shutter and mechanical shutter examples. The D5 has the edge in its 14 bit files.

The D5 is also a somewhat better higher ISO body, but not by a full stop.

Correct, shooting e-shutter, which limits the higher ISO and drops the files to 12 bit, the A9 can shoot at a greater frame rate than the D5. (And irony, Nikon was still there first with the Nikon 1 series and extraordinarily high raw frame rates.)

@How'I'm not sharing my raws, and DXO sensor scoring is a well known near joke.'

I'll tell you what is a well-known joke - the fact that HowaboutRAW continually posts about the deficiencies of Sony cameras whilst never having owned one. It's like a eunuch writing a book on how to pick up women.

Even funnier, he doesn't even have a digital camera! Instead he has 'hundreds of raws' gleaned presumably from playing with the cameras in camera shops.

He also 'tests' lenses. The 100-400GM had 'bad colour' and produced 'lifeless' images. Forget about an optical bench or Imatest, HowaboutRAW has got adjective testing. :)

your confusion there means that, once again, you aren't grasping the fundamentals of the english language... congrats on proving my point, again."

Your initial paragraph seems to imply that bit rate is the same as frame rate. It doesn't read like you're real familiar with English. I'd posited that you'd fix it.

"you don't have any raws, and you are not a more credible reference than dxo."

I'm not sharing my raws. No, you don't have to believe me regards my raws. But the joke that is most DXO sensor scoring is there to check. Until about 24 months ago, it was also clear on the DXO website that most of the testing was software modeling. This has been hidden since.

Were I you, I'd take the hint and work on your English and digital photography confusion.

>Well, the Nikon and the Canon both shoot 14bit raws at their highest frame rates.

Especially as I said and as DPreview confirmed in their review along with Dxomark, A9's 12-bit beats Nikon D5 14-bit raw in image quality. That's a proven well-tested fact confirmed by raws, dpreview and dxomark. Everyone.

It isn't just Dxomark. DPReview Rishi who took thousands of images with both cameras said the same thing: A9's 12-bit beats Nikon D5 14-bit raw in image quality. D5 has worst image quality out of these three sports cameras. Given we know that as a fact proven already, bragging about 14-bit is blowing hot air here. A9 does 20 fps which is faster with better image quality than slower D5.

wrong again, facts prove my belief... and the facts are that you don't have any raws that prove anything you say.

"Later Sony fixed this mistake"

sony didn't make any "mistakes", YOU did, when you stupidly tried to ignore frame rate on a 20fps camera... your ongoing failure to understand the concept and importance of a stacked sensor further proves your confusion.

wrong, your exact words were, including the quote from the article that you posted: ""What it lacks in built-in vertical grip, it makes up for in a faster burst (20 fps on the Sony, 14 fps on the Canon and 12 fps on the Nikon). " ...Well, the Nikon and the Canon both shoot 14bit raws at their highest frame rates."you completely ignored the article text that you quoted, and brought in a strawman argument about 12/14 bits!

Never claimed to own an A9. Don't pretend I did. Still have hundreds of my own A9 raws. No matter what your belief system tells you.

"you don't even know what a stacked sensor is, lol"

You're still not getting your confusion on this point. "stacked" means the processing chips are built in (usually on the back, which is some times called the "front") so "stacked" certainly can imply BSI, but Sony USA wasn't clear at the time of release about the A9 being a BSI sensor. (Sony Japan was clearer.)

no, howard, you don't have any a9 raws, and you don't even own an a9... you don't know anything about the camera, as proven by your abject confusion about what a stacked sensor is, and why it's so important.

""stacked" means the processing chips are built in"

no, in this case it's largely referencing dram, not "processing chips"... congrats on proving my point tho, lol, you don't have a clue what a stacked sensor is:

"So? R thought the D600 equals the D750 for higher ISO performance. It was staggering error, that he never admitted. Therefore..."

Even if true, he not only not admitted such thing regarding A9 and D5, but later on in full DPreview confirmed that A9 has better image quality than D5 with samples after taking hundreds of images, the same conclusion as Dxomark and all other sites. All confirm this.

12-bit A9 beats 14-bit D5 both in fps and image quality, so bragging about 14 bit here is hilarious.

"Even if true, he not only not admitted such thing regarding A9 and D5, but later on in full DPreview confirmed that A9 has better image quality than D5 with samples after taking hundreds of images, the same conclusion as Dxomark and all other sites. "

You know that IQ is highly dependent on the lens used right?

And the D5 is certainly a better higher ISO body than the A9. The A9 is only sort of close when shooting mechanical shutter.

"@howard - "And the D5 is certainly a better higher ISO body than the A9."

totally wrong, as usual... those cameras have equal p.d.r. at high iso levels, and the a9 is far superior at lower iso levels: "

Remember that I've tried both.

"why do you always spew false information, and then completely fail to back it up with actual FACTS, lmao"

I'm quite sure of my conclusion about the A9, which is an excellent higher ISO body, better than the A7SII, but the A9 has cyan and magenta blotching in shadows above ISO 50K, whereas the D5 doesn't encounter that problem until shooting above ISO 80K.

You really have to stop assuming that I have no basis for my claims. I'm quite sure of them.

And I note you entirely ignored the need to shoot mechanical shutter with the A9 if you want to shoot above ISO 25K, but that slows down the frame rate immensely.

Please don't cite DXO sensor scoring if you want to be treated as informed and caring about sensor performance.

Shooting 12 bit raws, with a good lens, the A9 can produce images of excellent IQ. With an equivalent lens, the 14 bit raws from the Nikon will be a bit better for IQ. Also the Nikon is not limited to ISO 25K when shooting high frame rates.

You don't seem real familiar with either.

And the Nikon is about 2/3 of a stop better as a higher ISO body--remembering of course that you can't set the A9 to shoot at ISO 50K in e-shutter. (ISO 50K being about where the A9 stops being useful when shooting the slow frame rate mechanical shutter.)

@ButoaHowaboutRAW is a lost cause, it is not worth arguing with him. I have have done that in the past and I do not bother confronting him again. His tread here (and most other threads too) shows lack of understanding of the practical use of cameras. Each camera has tradeoffs he just does not seem to grasp what matter for which camera. He gets really wrapped up on theoretical IQ numbers, that hardly matters at the end of the day even when he might be right, while overlooking fundamental camera features that gets you much much further the bit number of the AD converter, or the split ISO advantage of a camera over another at ISO 50,000

What part of "DXO sensor scores are laughable" do you not understand? Additionally, what part "you can't shoot the A9 above ISO 25K in full e-shutter" do you not apprehend? Third, what part of "IQ is not simply about a camera body" confuses you?

Sorry, I've have hundreds of raws from both. And the D5 still has a faster frame rate in full mechanical shutter--and you can use the D5 at higher ISOs, while still getting acceptable results.

"Each camera has tradeoffs he just does not seem to grasp what matter for which camera. He gets really wrapped up on theoretical IQ numbers, "

"theoretical"? How so? I've tried these cameras.

Now you are correct, cameras have trade offs. The A9 for example has a high e-shutte frame rate, but the highend of the ISO is limited in that setting. While its mechanical shutter frame rate is very slow.

Then of course the D5 isn't a strong video camera, its shutter is not silent, and there's VF blackout. But unlike the A9, it shoots full 14 bit raws at its highest frame rate and you can set the ISO above 25K.

I get it, ISO 50K isn't important to you. That doesn't make the setting "theoretical". You read like those about 10 years ago who said "no one will ever need to shoot above ISO 1600"--this about when the Nikon D3 came out. You lost this point 10 years ago.

If that makes you more secure, go right ahead and suppose that. However I stand by my conclusions, and I like the Sony A9.

To answer the question: Why try so many cameras?

For my purposes I'm looking for usable higher ISO capacity, which the Sony A9 most certainly has--the Nikon D5 is a bit better.

I'm also looking for improvements in optical quality. As you likely know, yes lenses have vastly improved for sharpness/clarity. However even most good Fuji lenses still lack the colour subtly of better Leica and Zeiss. And colour quality is very important to me.

Now, there are surprises regards lenses. Samsung being by far the biggest surprise. And Nikon+Sigma have clearly started to figure out what Zeiss and Leica have known about for 100 years. So that's an interesting improvement to see developing.

Howard, why don't you actually try being a photographer for a while and see what you can do with whatever camera you happen to have handy? Then show us some nice examples of how good a photographer you are to illustrate why you are looking for even better cameras and lenses for your demanding requirements.

he thinks that he does, but given that he isn't able to back up anything that he claims, it's a fantasy world... his "evidence free assertions" would get him a failing grade in any school setting, lol

engineers and scientists who live in the real world have to prove what they say with math and physics, and that hard data is what smart people use to make purchasing decisions, because it's verifiable.

And still I have hundreds of raws from the A9 and D5, 1DXII too. (Right, I've not shared them.)

physics proves little, it proves models, which can indeed be very helpful, but can also be a distraction. much of physics is like measuring the outside of a milk container to determine the chemical properties of the milk there in.

As competent attorney, which in this analogy I am since I have the raws, or my client does, I'd never agree to represent my client without the understanding that the raws could very well be shared in court.

Prior to trial the prosecution would also want any evidence disclosed that could undermine whatever their case were.

So you have some strange understandings of law courts, at least in the USA.

And you have this fantasy where I'd be unwilling to share my raws with the a court.

What I am unwilling to do is post my raws to server for download by any and all--there be a difference.

You're not a very good lawyer. Your problem is that you introduced too many points that depended on you having made up something whole cloth.

Now, if you could prove that I don't have my raws (you can't) and that in your hypothetical court case, I'd be dumb enough to say "we'll not share the exculpatory evidence" (again you can't), then you'd sort of have a "valid" point.

I've made love to hundreds of the world's top models and actresses. I rated them on my web site. The proof (of which I have countless examples) is too personal and valuable to share. But take my word on it.

"Howard, why don't you actually try being a photographer for a while and see what you can do with whatever camera you happen to have handy? Then show us some nice examples of how good a photographer you are to illustrate why you are looking for even better cameras and lenses for your demanding requirements."

Except for the sharing online willy-nilly: Almost 2 decades ahead of you. But back in the film era 35mm colour film really stopped being useful over ISO 800. Then it's not like in 2004/5 (when the take over by digital occurred) that there were digital cameras one could readily shoot at ISO 3200.

So yawn.

And I remind you this website is a gear website, not a photography gallery website.

"I've made love to hundreds of the world's top models and actresses. I rated them on my web site. The proof (of which I have countless examples) is too personal and valuable to share. But take my word on it."

Couple things here: One you're certainly allowed to claim that, and of course no one will believe you. But you've treated women as objects to be tested, tried, rated, and discard if some better specced and functioning version comes along. Also the claims of such promiscuity are kind of icky.

You've gone to a really bad place and posted a treatment of women as things--yes you did say "actresses". I would highly suggest you look into your misogyny, understand it and apologize. Not to me.

And still I have hundreds of raws from the Sony A9, Leica SL, Leica M10, Nikon D5. And I've tried dozens of lenses, yes including the Noctilux f0.95--have Sony A7RIII raws that I shot myself too. Not one of those cameras is a woman.

2 decades ahead of me? Are you in your 90s or 40s as you stated somewhere? I have been shooting for 50 years. I had a darkroom in 1965. My first magazine assignment was in 1967 when I was in high school. (Discoscene magazine.) I graduated from RIT in 74. I still have sheet film holders I bought before you were born.

There are galleries here and photographic examples are used to confirm most all assertions. What do you thing the various tests are for... debate or proof?

In any case we all get you. The only thing you want to do is argue and unfortunately you have sucked many of us in with you. I have no illusions.

I am making a commitment to be disciplined and to never reply to you again.

I feel I know photography pretty well and have defined my role in the field. What I can learn here is general opinions and reviews about the occasional pieces of gear I am considering purchasing. And maybe some new techniques so I can improve.

Alan....Some people are really proud of their ignorance....Whether it be when their facts are wrong...And they lose an argument....Or it could be the kind of ignorance....Where they call people liars...Again, calling someone a liar....Has nothing to do with gear...And we all know...This is a gear site....:=)

Put more clearly, "nearly 2 decades ahead of the request you posted"; now I really thought that was obvious. Note on your phrasing you didn't say "I've been showing my work for 50 years how long have you been doing so, if at all?"

More problematic: I see you've not dealt with your treatment of women as objects to be used and discarded.

"no howard, any camera that doesn't have a mirror is a mirrorless camera, by definition... it's simple english, and it's not arguable."

No, in the case of photography. "mirrorless" doesn't include my Panasonic LX5.

Mirrorless means mirrorless ILC.

Think of it this way: A few months ago Canon introduced the new Canon G1X, the mark III, and no one said, "Canon ships new mirrorless". You can repeat variations of this example going back more than 20 years now.

I hope this technology filters down into the A7, because at its price point it would hit the sweet spot for a lot of Pro/AdvAm like myself to move to mirror-less.Although for sports,action can the A9 go from standby to ready to shoot as fast as my Nikon DSLRs can since 2005? And I mean seeing subject in viewfinder.Paul

High speed photography is what all amateurs want. Think about it. Almost all want cameras to capture their kids, and dogs in action. As they grow, they want to take pictures of their grownup kids doing a theatre or playing football. With that in mind, the A9 is the best camera for the amateur.

According to DPReview, Sony has released 3 cameras in 2017 😉It's not exactly "a ton".That said, they are quite amazing products, and I agree that 3 game-changing products are much more interesting that tons of rehashed and boring stuff.

The same old clichets rolled out very time that a competent photographer compares a camera targetted at high-speed photography with what they want from an all-round camera. Dull, predictable and pointless.

Reading this article would never convey what a superb device this is for its intended purpose.

Perhaps it contains all the clichés about being a good all-round camera because Dan is an all-round shooter (this is an article about his favourite gear and why)? Rather than "clichés", I'd call them simply simply "needs", as in Dan is simply stating what the needs of an all-round shooter are and how the A9 met them.

What's of note to me is that this is the first Sony mirrorless camera where those "clichés" actually apply. It is their first mirrorless where the phrase "I still use my DSLR for sports" has been rendered obsolete. For all-round shooters (and there are many) the Sony A9 was a watershed moment.

Associating a camera with professional sports is a weak testimonial. Other than long lenses, a temporary deficiency for Sony, DSLRs do nothing special for the process, which lies in the skill and timing of the photographer. It is kin to buying a set of clubs used by Tiger Woods, or shoes worn by LeBron James.

Where the Sony A9 excels over a DSLR is focus accuracy, lenses sharp to the extreme corners (irrelevant to sports photography), silent operation, and compact size.

I think you got a couple things wrong. The first one is lens corner sharpness, that's got nothing to do with the format, it's all about the lens. Unless there's a reason ML has sharper corners than DSLRs, if so, please enlighten me.

Also, it's not accurate to say ML is more accurate than a DSLR anymore. I had a 70D with dual pixel AF and when i wanted to eliminate the possibility of focus errors, when i wanted more sure handed precision, i had it. The only real advantage of what you are describing is getting that precision held to your eye, and for that, DSLRs have Hoodman products.

In time all Canon models made will have DPAF, and eventually Nikon and Pentax will advance their on sensor focusing. Pentax, if i remember, just introduced their first ever OSPDAF on the K70. Performance was dismal but ML was too back in the day.

In time, LV performance between DSLRs and ML will be indistinguishable. But then what would people troll about?

I don’t understand how would a Goodman product give a DSLR the same level of eye focus accuracy on a moving person as the A9? How will the DSLR give you that same confidence you will nail the shot tack sharp?

@sillen, you are tracking eyeballs on track n field athletes? All im saying is there is nothing innately linked to a ML cameras' sensors that can't be added to a DSLRs sensor. The only reason you don't see ML type LV performance in DSLRs yet is bc they haven't needed it, OVFs were good enough to sell product.

If ML make a big enough dent and MFGs are ready for the next tech step, they will start working on LV. Canon is already doing this, and you are seeing all DSLR makers taking small steps.

Remember when people used to complain no high end DSLRs had articulating screens? Heck even Nikon is adding a full E shutter now with the D850 (and Pentax has it in PS mode). LV is being viewed as more important little by little. It's only a matter of time and i don't think Nikon is gonna let Canon run away too far in the lead.

Time will tell if Pentax is even awake. Each format developed different parts at different speed. Nothing is replacing anything else. Both will exist.

@max do you know a single expert who doesn't agree that mirrorless is the future. If you know someone who says otherwise please name that person so we can understand where he is getting his ideas.Now the remaining question is till when dslrs stay the main cameras. This would be pretty much answered when nikon releases their mirrorless and soon canon too does the same. That moment the fate of dslr is sealed. I am no expert but i can take bet on it.

@Max"I think you got a couple things wrong. The first one is lens corner sharpness, that's got nothing to do with the format, it's all about the lens. Unless there's a reason ML has sharper corners than DSLRs, if so, please enlighten me."

It's a reference to the 93% autofocus coverage of the A9, nothing to do with lenses. The array stretches right to the corner of the frame.

@max yes you can have same sensor in a DSLR as in ML camera. But to run the same type of functions (eg continous eye focus) you would need to lock up the mirror always, which shows you will have a hassel and delar every time you wantbuse the eye focus. The mirror is unnecessary weight, cost, noise, risk of mechanical problems.

@Rubber, it's not a reference to AF at all. He specifically stated "lenses sharp to the extreme corners (irrelevant to sports photography)". How could you possibly think the comment i replied to was talking about AF points? And if it was about AF points, why would that be "irrelevant" to sports? Isn't that the main area it would actually benefit?

Ed made a false comment about ML having better corner sharpness and i corrected it. What's the problem?

@sillen, so we have to "lock" up the mirror. And? Dude it's one button press to enter LV, you guys make it sound like we gotta pop the hood and tinker with the transmission.

And no, we don't have to do that every time we want eye AF, DSLRs have that now too even without using LV. The advantage to LV is real time previewing of some settings like WB, as well as silent operation.

Some of us actually prefer the aesthetics of an OVF. Using a DSLR means i get the aesthetics i want for most of my use, but still have LV when i need those specific advantages. Yes using an LCD isn't shaded from the sun. I can either get a hoodman or just use my OVF.

And i disagree, the mirror isn't unnecessary. Maybe to you, not to me, and it has real practical benefits like giving me more than a measly 2 hours of operational time.

Unfortunately, a DSLR is blind to events occurring when the mirror is moving or up. Tracking depends on predictive focusing. A mirrorless camera like the A9 measures focus continually, 120 times per second. Predictive focusing has many more data points at its disposal. Furthermore 93% of the image is covered, compared to 23% for a Nikon D5, which has to estimate the position of the subject when it leaves the center of the frame.

@Max "@Rubber, it's not a reference to AF at all. He specifically stated "lenses sharp to the extreme corners (irrelevant to sports photography)". How could you possibly think the comment i replied to was talking about AF points?"

Max, you really are hard work. Here's the quote. Because I can't add bolding I've capitalised the relevant section:

'WHERE THE SONY A9 EXCELS OVER A DSLR is focus accuracy, lenses sharp to the extreme corners'

The A9 doesn't have special lenses that only it uses. It is compared to DSLRs (not Nikon or Canon - DSLRs - i.e. all DSLRs) ergo it is a reference to the focussing. The OP has also confirmed it in his post above mine.

EVF has its advantages. However, so does the OVF. Some people get eye strain looking at a screen. An EVF also constantly adjusts exposure which can be annoying. In darker situations or with small enough apertures it starts to lag and to me almost feels like I experience some eye twitch. Basically your eye is better than any EVF, and an OVF you use your eye to view the scene rather than the senor. Since your eye has better DR you see more. This is a noticeable advantage (to me at least) when shooting back lit subjects.

If you are a competent sports photographer I imagine you know your camera and your photography like the back of your hand. Once you have set exposure right the first time the LV preview from and EVF is negligible. Yes eye AF is great, but somehow I don't think it is absolutely necessary since you will still get great images with a DSLR, and most people won't be pixel peeping.

Lastly... sony made a big deal that they hit the #2 spot regarding FF camera sales. Never heard anything about the APS-C market. Probably cause they aren't doing as well there. Heck... I hate the APS-C bodies, which is why I have an A7II. The big lenses they are coming out with also doesn't help the APS-C bodies.

Canon is still the market leader by a very very wide margin. They are also doing well by using the M line as a way to get their mirrorless systems up and running at very little risk of influencing their other camera lines. They have a massive stock of lenses making them the cheaper lens OEM. They have all the pieces in place to release a great FF ML if they wanted to.

I honestly do wish they had gotten on with it before I switched to sony. I far prefer their menus, style, and ergonomics. Heck I like their LV implementation and wide open focusing instead of all the corners sony have cut.

Wait and see... I get the feeling that the big two are not done. Esp not canon

Ed has confirmed nothing, he simply made another post concerning AF. His OP, which i will quote, was mentioning multiple things he thought were in favor of the A9. You make it sound like the focus accuracy and corner bit were the same point. Really? Here is what he said.

"Where the Sony A9 excels over a DSLR is focus accuracy, lenses sharp to the extreme corners (irrelevant to sports photography), silent operation, and compact size."

He listed 4 things. #1focus accuracy, #2lenses sharp, #3silent, #4compact. I agree with #1, although it's not every shot every time. I have many shots with DSLRs that were spot on an eye up close with fast apertures. Consistency is a better way to put it.

I agree with $3 too, i have touted E shutter (silent mode) as a huge benefit i liked about ML. #4 isn't a benefit, for some it's a downside. I prefer larger. Size is subjective, you don't get to claim universal preference.

And #2 is simply false. Corner sharpness is a lens attribute. Stop lying.

Max, you really are hard work. Here's the quote. Because I can't add bolding I've capitalised the relevant section:

'WHERE THE SONY A9 EXCELS OVER A DSLR is focus accuracy, lenses sharp to the extreme corners'

The A9 doesn't have special lenses that only it uses. It is compared to DSLRs (not Nikon or Canon - DSLRs - i.e. all DSLRs) ergo it is a reference to the focussing. The OP has also confirmed it in his post above mine.

They are the market leader in DSLRs but they are not the market leader in FF mirrorless.

'They are also doing well by using the M line as a way to get their mirrorless systems up and running at very little risk of influencing their other camera lines.'

The thing is, the 'M line' is only two years younger than e-mount. Yes, you heard right - 2 YEARS. They should have just released their A7rII! :)

Canon hasn't built a FF mirrorless because they can't. They can't do it technically - they don't have IBIS or a processor that can manage to compress 4K into an mpeg codec and they won't do it because it requires a new mount and if they force their users to buy their lenses again they run the risk of them defecting to another brand. They also would be competing with Sony on their own terms and I think they are too proud to that.

You just lost any credibility after spraying that out. Hmm... lets see. The original A7 did not IBIS, nor did it make any 4k video (the mark II doesn't do the latter either). And yet the A7 is a mirrorless camera (in all technical sense). So yes canon can do that. In fact with some software tweaks, if you remove the mirror box out of the 5DIV, you have a functional ML camera (LV only of course).

Lastly, they don't really need a new mount they have the M-mount. It has a 18 mm flange distance (same as e-mount), and the throat is 47 mm (e-mount is 46). So technically sony has already shown that those parameters can work with a FF sensor. They already have a good EF to EF-M adapter.

Canon is big enough and has the experience to make a FF ML camera without much of an issue.

If you have a look at their cine line they also have the codecs needed for proper 4k. Again... they have all the pieces

@LawnyI don't care whether you think I have credibility or not. The difference is my conclusions are based on evidence, rather than what I wish would happen. Wishing that Canon would create a FF mirrorless is not the same as them doing it.

There is no Canon camera with 4K in mpg format. Not even the £6000 1DXII. The reason is the onboard processor (DIGIC) cannot handle a computationally intensive GOP codec like mpg4. It has 1080p in mpg4.

If Canon cannot put it in a camera that costs that much how are they going to put it in a camera to compete with Sony?

M-mount may be suitable for mirrorless but there are currently no m lenses that image a FF sensor, despite the mount being almost as old as e-mount, so they would be starting from nothing.

Canon has just released a new and highly anticipated lens - the 85/1.4. If they were considering using M mount for mirrorless this lens would have been in M-mount.

Canon is heavily invested in the EF mount. It is a ciné mount like e-mount so Canon would have to keep EF mount running alongside M mount to retain that revenue. This is not the same as Sony running A-mount alongside e-mount or Nikon running DX and FX because the Canon mirrorless mount would have to duplicate the EF mount in terms of available lenses.

As soon as they release lenses in a new mount, the principal reason for users staying loyal to Canon is gone. If you have to buy all your lenses again in a new mount why not switch to Sony or Fuji? No company will test their user base in this way. EF lenses would also lose their re-sale value overnight as the market became flooded with them.

The problem with much thinking about Nikon and Canon mirrorless is subconsciously placing Sony behind Canon and Nikon. Assuming that if Sony can do something, so can anyone else. Sony's expertise in video actually far exceeds Nikon and Canon. Their closest competitor is actually Panasonic.

Digital cameras are essentially video cameras and Sony is the 'Canon' in that market space having pioneered much of the technology over the last fifty years. They also have a culture of and expertise in miniaturisation which has driven much of the development of their mirrorless cameras.

Canon has done nothing so far because there is no obvious path to take. There is no action they can take without losing money. The cannot compete with Sony technically, but they are the market leader in sales and have deep brand awareness. Over time this will erode, but at the moment it is cheaper for them to market against mirrorless than compete with it.

I think they will try to force Nikon out of business and create a niche as the last DSLR manufacturer. When mirrorless is the majority technology, I think they will either stop making cameras and concentrate on lens production or compete behind Sony in a consumer space.

It is true a camera does nothing but capture images, but the best images are formed in the photographer's mind long before the shutter is pressed. The Sony A9 is the ;east intrusive device in that process that to date, in my experience.

I used a Sony A7ii for over two years before the A9, and found it could consistently capture good, sharp images. With in-body image stabilization with any lens, it accomplishes something no DSLR does - near freedom from tripods. It is also capable of near silent operation for normal shooting, unlike live view in a DSLR, which has little use for active subjects. The MILC is in fact, 100% live view.

The A9 has proven to be as much advanced over the A7Rii as the latter was compared to my Nikon D3. The cold start and awakening times are comparable to the DSLR. It grabs the subject, focuses and tracks in an eye blink. I don't do sports, but grandchildren are every bit as much of a challenge in that regard.

I could never find the correct settings on my emulsion-film camera for ripping high quality images of action at 20 fps off a video stream, that I could see happening live in the viewfinder. What setings did you use for this in the good old days? It's just pictures, right?

the a9 is never "frozen", that is nonsense... you always have access to menu items: "The camera provides a variety of Menu-specific functions that can be assigned to any number of the A9's buttons. During buffer clearing, the A9 still lets you access the main Function (Fn) shortcut menu, as well as any of the Menu functions you custom-set to a button. So, though you can't access the full Menu while the buffer is clearing, you can still access certain menu items that have been pre-assigned to a custom button"http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a9/sony-a9-conclusion.htm

This is a stupid criticism made only by people that have never used or spent 15 minutes to setup their camera. Anything you can reasonably think of wanting to change while the buffer clears can be put on that function menu. Which is where you want it anyway, since it's so much easier to change stuff from there. If you've only picked up the camera in the shop and played with it for 15 seconds, you wouldn't know this. Anyone that actually uses the camera doesn't have this concern.

In the OTHER comment thread, I replied directly to YOU: "The problem is noone who spent any amount of time setting up the fn menu actually needs to access the full menu while shooting. In fact, I almost NEVER go in there.. At ALL anymore." You got notifications for that one since you posted in there too. So presumably you saw that already. Anyway. I'm not wasting any more time. I'm enjoying my a9. you can keep on enjoying your Nikon.

"I'm not insecure in any of my choices. My next camera will probably be mirrorless, but I hold no illusions on their limitations."

I guess that is us we do believe in removing limitations and progress. People who post problems with say the a6000 or even older bring up points we agree on. The a6000 irritated the hell out of me with its buffer,feel etc etc they fixed it... We complain and every generation becomes better and better fast. I would say of the 10 top complains reviewers had on sony camera's last year sony removed 7 of them in 2017. So it seems only fair to compare these new models by trying them and to see if you agree with us. One thing you have to admit i think sony is not shy about attacking the problems sites like dpreview throw up and reacts within a say 2 year cycle and thats damn impressive so i will keep my illusions on no limitations a little longer .. And use this nice a7R3 while waiting.

My first serious camera was a Sony 5R. If they had made serious APS-C lens like Fuji came out with, and bodies like the NEX-7, I probably would have never left Sony. However, as soon as I bought in, Sony themselves said that the APS-C bodies were going to be consumer-level, that the A-mount was going to be the 'serious' line. I got out and went elsewhere, and have been glad I did, they have abandoned APS-C E-mount.

And then of course shortly after they designate E-mount as 'consumer-grade,' they came out with the FE line, and that put the nail in the coffin of APS-C lens development. They followed the path of Canon and Nikon of focusing on developing lens with focal lengths and coverage sizes for 35mm sensors, just let the APS-C users buy those.

Ehh, as a M4/3 user, if we were talking strictly lens selection, Fuji would easily be my 2nd choice over Sony's APS-C lineup. That one release aside, their APS-C lens development has slowed to a crawl, I'm not sure how you argue against that...

Whether the current lineup is "enough" for some and/or whether FF lenses fill in the gaps is another far more subjective matter.

It shouldn't be taken as an insult that Sony followed the path of Canikon tho, using the APS-C line as the stepping stone to FF has worked for them for years. It may not be what every consumer wants necessarily, but as a market strategy it's a proven one.

Lol, the E PZ 18-110mm F4 G is a highly-specialized video/cinema lens. And don't all the 6000-series have the same horrid body and EVF? Maybe the higher ones are better than the 6000, it doesn't matter to me, since you can't get high-quality, fast primes in equivalent focal lengths to classic 35mm ones.

I am sure you have an out for that too, but if they system doesn't have what I want, it just doesn't have what I want.

OTOH, the FE line has finally gotten to the point that I probably going to start buying into it. Only took three tries, but the new a7R sounds like it is finally there, and they have the lenses now.

that sony zoom is sharp for stills, but it is big and heavy... e-mount has become the best option for video; when fuji released those two mf pro zooms, they only did it only in crop e-mount... not x-mount, not eos, and not m4/3, which pretty much says it all.

the problem with fuji is: 1)no ibis, 2)no adapter for eos or nikon, 3)no path to ff, which is where the profit is for these camera companies, and you all indicated.

with adapters, e-mount has a virtually unlimited lens selection, and with the state of sony hybrid focusing these days, you can even get eyeaf with all three types of mount adapters, at 10fps... a-mount, eos, and most nikon mount lenses.

it's only a perceived problem. that "path" is imaginary. people i've seen change their system to FF almost always sell all of their APS-C lenses and buy FF lenses.

If you're saying that they would use FF lenses on APS-C bodies to begin with, it means the size advantage of the smaller imaging circle is not taken advantage of. Of course that would be a bad APS-C system and no wonder people move away.

It’s ridiculous to think FE lens system put a nail on the apsc cuffin. I own both a6300 and a7r2 and there are fantastic FE lenses that are small enough for my apsc body. Everything on the lens works flawlessly.

Sony produced a very large number of lenses for the e mount over the last just few years. Sigma, Rokinon, and others are already on board too. People still looking for things to complain. No super zoom lenses for wild life. A little patience. It’s all a temporary problem. Or use canikon lenses with good AF, 10fps shooting speeds.

@CarolYou can buy three AF Zeiss lenses with all-metal construction for Sony aps-c e-mount. I would call them 'serious' lenses.

The fact is that Sony has a good range of aps-c-only for the A6xxx series. It all very well asking for GM quality aps-c-only primes but people will not buy them. People will not pay £2000 for aps-c lenses.

Hey, if you fanboys and people with poor reading comprehension are happy and feel Sony E-mount APS-C is all that, good for you!

I find other systems meet my needs far better than Sony APS-C. And I am not a Sony basher in general, I am most certainly going to get an a7RIII and some primes. I just have been completely disappointed in how Sony has handled E-mount APS-C, and continue to be. I loved the system and where I thought it was going, and they basically killed that. It sucked.

Feel free to keep piling on, though. Just remember to wipe the spittle off your chins before you go out in polite society, if that is thing you even do.

@osv If someone "at some point" be buying only FF lenses - they would still need to sell their APS-C lenses unless they only use FF lenses since the beginning. So the statement "don't have to sell any glass" is untrue, assuming the eventual goal with an FF system is to use only FF glasses.

You either start with only FF-only lenses (which is as I mentioned, not really taking advantage of APS-C) or have to sell *some* APS-C glasses.

@wy2lam - "You either start with only FF-only lenses (which is as I mentioned, not really taking advantage of APS-C)"

wrong, if for no other reason than the p.q. can be better, because the bigger image circle on the ff glass means less vignetting and fewer distortions.

it's funny how you point out flaws in your own thinking, then contradict yourself by ignoring p.q.... if ff is your goal, and you stupidly bought crop glass, or if you weren't smart enough to see that your goal was ff from the beginning, it's not a gear problem at all... it's a human error problem; you failed to listen to what i am saying in this thread.

you are a fuji owner, and trolling the path to ff is what you people do, because you don't have any path to ff, lol... x-mount is a dead end, with a weaker lens selection than even m4/3.

@osv - you seem to have a very narrow definition of "advantage". The advantage of APS-C lenses to FF lenses - is that with a smaller image circle, there's a size/weight saving.

Very funny that you think the world evolve only around P.Q.If P.Q. is the only concern everyone should be running with M.F. and F.F. owners would use adaptors to use M.F. glass for a future migration path.

If FF is your goal, get an FF body with FF glass.

Buying a crop body but not using APC-glass - and use only FF glass just for a possible, imagined "Path", is a stupid financial decision - especially now that FF bodies are not that much more expensive than good crop bodies, anyway.

I'm a Fuji owner, yes - and I got there after years of FF. Funny that you resort to attacking my choice when you don't have much logical thing to say about the argument. lol.

@wy2lam - since you don't care about p.q., you might as well stick to taking photos with your smartphone.

this sony ff article is for people who need more out of a camera, and want to improve their craft, not fuji fanbois who know nothing about sony or ff... claiming that people should run to mf shows a lack of knowledge about both ff and mf, because mf lens selection is dismal, worse than even x-mount.

and no, there isn't any advantage to fuji glass, it's absurdly overpriced, and the selection is weak, m4/3 has more lenses than fuji does... x-mount is a dead end, with no path to ff.

here are nine fuji owners who went to sony ff, none of their fuji crop lenses are useful for ff shooting... if they had been on sony crop cameras instead of fuji, they could have been buying fe glass, and then re-using it for the ff cameras that they bought, or even use their sony crop glass on ff:

I had my doubts about you being a Sony astroturfer when others said so, but your posts seem to fit all the definitions. Try to stay on topic instead of FUDing my choice? Geez. I thought it's you who said it's an "Sony FF article". LOL.

If you need a memory refresher, you said: "you will at some point be buying only ff lenses for your aps-c camera, so that you don't have to sell any glass when you move to ff.".

Anyone with half a brain would find that impossible - unless you own only FF glass *from the beginning* (not "at some point"), you'll *have* to sell some APS-C glass.

your "choice" = fuji fanboi, who won't listen to people who actually own ff sony gear.

i even gave you concrete examples of nine former fuji owners who got burned by owning fuji crop lenses, because they didn't have a path to ff... but you kept trolling, lol, you refuse to accept the experiences of other fuji owners.

@CarolThere are only seven Zeiss prime lenses in production with autofocus and THREE of them are e-mount and aps-c only. You completely ignored this because it contradicts your thesis that there are no high quality primes for aps-c e-mount. You also ignored my point about people being unwilling to pay 2K for aps-c only lenses and instead wrote this:

"Hey, if you fanboys and people with poor reading comprehension are happy and feel Sony E-mount APS-C is all that, good for you!"

You then said Sony aps-c doesn't suit you before making an insulting remark about Sony users having spittle on their chins.

You're not a serious poster and osv is right: 'Only people who are stupid AF think that there hasn't been any lenses for Sony APS-C'.

@Carol TYou may not waste your time, but you waste other people's time. If you make a statement and people refute it they're entitled to a civil answer. All you've done is abuse everybody in this thread and run away.

I made this point:

"There are only seven Zeiss prime lenses in production with autofocus and THREE of them are e-mount and aps-c only."

And all you could say was 'Enjoy sputtering at your your computer screen, lol.'

There is not use in me answering you anyhow. I know full well about the Touits, and the 24/1.8 made by Zeiss and branded Sony. They don't do it for me, but no reasons I would have would ever satisfy you rabid fanboys, so it is a waste of my time to even bother trying to have a discussion with you. So, here is a vulgar acronym for you: FO.

You may or not be too stupid too understand, but you won't listen, so I won't bother. And I disagree about FF lenses taking the place of fast APS-C primes, but you won't listen to that, either, for sure (DPR wrote a whole article on the myth of the upgrade path, but what do they know either, right?).

And no, Sony can make whatever the hell they like, but if it doesn't meet my needs, no matter what you think my needs should be, it doesn't meet my needs. But you fanboys have to be right, and you have to win. This is why I said I don't waste my time bothering to try to explain my rationale. You don't effing listen. But hey, you can be the winner, I am done.

And yeah, saying "You're not a serious poster and osv is right: 'Only people who are stupid AF think that there hasn't been any lenses for Sony APS-C'." is the same as calling me stupid as f-ck. Speaking of which, you assume I still shoot Fuji because I mentioned they make lenses that make sense for APS-C. Which I don't.

A choice well justified by the article. I think the idea of a "pro" camera being smallish is a hard concept for some people to grasp but, if you've spent nine hours on your feet shooting an event, these smaller bodies are a revelation! Personally, I prefer the advantages of smaller sensors but I see the appeal.

Not perfect though - the moiré on that viewing platform photo is very 90s...

That depends very much on what you want to do! It is one reason I prefer a smaller format (which does brilliantly in that regard) but the Sony system still does well here. For example, you can use outstanding and tiny Leica lenses on the Sony, which you can't on a camera which has a flapping mirror to clear.

On the other hand, you can directly compare even the bigger Sony/Zeiss lenses (with body) to the top line Canon and Nikon lenses (with body) and you are still better off, in terms of what you have to carry. Just imagine the luxury of being able to carry a spare body and not finding that a burden.

The real killer for Sony, in a professional sense, is still the lack of serious long lenses, though they have made a start, I guess.

Sony is good at copying others and combing what they copied on to a FF mirrorless camera. Since no one else makes a FF mirrorless ILC at the moment they are the best!Maybe the mark II version will include a fully functional touchscreen like the billion other cameras in the world today.

One thing Sony did create on their own (speaking of the NEX 7) was the unique Three-dial user interface on the NEX 7. Too bad they abandoned that.

I agree with you regarding the NEX7 dials. I have now the A7R as well, but operating the NEX7 is definitely preferable to me. Although one of the dials on the nex7 for me was always set to the exposure compensation. The A7R gives me a separate dial for that. So for me I am back to 3 dials on the A7R.

If my memory serves me well, they bought a 10% share in Olympus, so didn't really copy the technology, just adapted and used it!

If you can look at manufacturers objectively, you'll note Sony are desperately trying to tick as many boxes as possible and largely succeeding, Nikon are doing something similar but sticking to the old-tech mirrors, Canon are steadily producing a range of easy to use cameras with pleasing outputs and still doing better than either. All the other manufacturers are a little bit niche by comparison.

I wouldn't knock Sony for trying very hard and doing well as a result!

It is a shame Sony’s copy of 5 axis IS is so poor. It simply can’t do what others can do.It is a shame the Sony’s copy of the electronic shutter is so poor it simply can’t do what so many others can do like shoot 60FPS.Sony needs to do a better job copying others. They can’t even get weather sealing right.

In non of the above points any Canon gear excels of the average of the market.

I've left the Canon bandwagon almost two years ago and I was never that happy with the speed of innovation as with Sony.

Even though I am not interested in getting an A9 - I think it is a very solid value proposition for people who need that feature set in an ultra compact and comparable lightweight body - especially compared to the D1x II

"The camera provides a variety of Menu-specific functions that can be assigned to any number of the A9's buttons. During buffer clearing, the A9 still lets you access the main Function (Fn) shortcut menu, as well as any of the Menu functions you custom-set to a button. So, though you can't access the full Menu while the buffer is clearing, you can still access certain menu items that have been pre-assigned to a custom button"http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a9/sony-a9-conclusion.htm

Visualenvy. The problem is noone who spent any amount of time setting up the fn menu actually needs to access the full menu while shooting. In fact, I almost NEVER go in there.. At ALL anymore...

This is a stupid criticism made only by people that have never used or spent 15 minutes to setup their camera. Anything you can reasonably think of wanting to change while the buffer clears can be put on that function menu, which is where you want it anyway, since it's so much easier to change stuff from there. If you've only picked up the camera in the shop and played with it for 15 seconds, you wouldn't know this. Anyone that actually uses the camera doesn't have this concern.

that tends to happen with people who troll camera gear that they don't know anything about... you foolishly claim that you need to be able to do something in the menu, but you can't give any examples of what specific functionality it is that you think you are unable to access on the a9, LMAO

I hate how my A6000 "freezes" when writing to the card. That being my only experience I'm simply saying (and agreeing with another poster) if this is the case even on the A9 then I'm happy to admire it but I prefer my DSLR for now. Not sure why you are so full of hate for an opinion... this is a forum for discussion right?

Glad you enjoy the camera you picked :) happy for you.. just don't troll an opinion with misinformation. thanks.

And even in the a6000 'line' they fixed it. the a6500 does what the a9 does allow many functions to work. The a7r3 that i now also own goes a step further but as osv remarked once you set things up i doubt i will notice the difference since you never enter the menus anymore. Now the recall memory override option on the a7r3 and a9 are cool :)

All I'm telling you is i had a personally bad experience with the A6000 and that has turned me off mirrorless still. Is the A6000 the same as the A9?!! of course not!!! I'm just saying that what turned me off on the A6000 better NOT be there on the A9 given it wants $4500 and labeled as Professional grade.

I was hoping that people would constructively say that my issue with the A6000 does not exist with the A9.. instead i got some BS from osv and then the Sony troll brigade showed up next.

My conclusion is that the A9 is getting there but still some polishing left. While many will enjoy the camera, until those minor issues are resolved I will keep waiting for the right time. No harm no foul for anyone.

As for Sony owners... i'm starting to see a trend.. defensive bunch you are.

@visualenvy, your fundamental flaw was you piggybacked off of an ignorant, incorrect comment by the original commenter... Endorsing a completely false statement. And attempting to discredit OSV's initial response. The fact that you related your experience with your A6000 doesn't absolve you of your responsibility in backing up that initial false statement.

Perhaps you should have done more research before you said "I agree." And, once you realized your mistake, you could have acknowledged it, instead of doubling down on your BS argument..

Once you buy Sony you ascend to godly status which affords you the ability to troll and demean any different opinion.

Any criticism must be silenced and the Sony army will be there to help defend the holy grail.

How dareth thow talk wickedness about the great Sony. The perfection simply may noteth be questioned.

You must be stupid to not use Sony. How dare you take pictures with anything other than Sony. Anything that came before Sony was not legitimate. Anything that is not Sony shall be thrown to the pit of fire for it is blasphemy for it to exist along side the godly Sony.

But it wasn't any camera, it was taken with an a9 and a great lens at a great time of day. It is a beautiful photo and it shows the potential of the camera. I just don't think my a6000 would have revealed the same level of detail, not buying that any camera could do it.

@visual The A9 has a faster readout than almost any other camera when using e-shutter which does minimize the potential for banding and distortion, tho it doesn't completely eliminate it.

Panasonic was indeed one of the e-shutter pioneers, OTOH they were pretty much last to adopt EFC for more general shutter shock avoidance, and the Oly E-M1 II has an e-shutter readout speed 2-3x faster than most Pana bodies (like 1/2 as fast as Sony's IIRC).

I'm sure they'll all keep improving in this regard, a global e-shutter with no readout speed limitations and no physical curtains is the holy grail but that still seems a ways off for a high end stills camera.

Impulses is correct, The A9 does copy the Olympus E-M1 mark II by adding faster sensor readout "which does minimize the potential for banding and distortion, tho it doesn't completely eliminate it" . It's 5 axis IS not as good and it lacks a fully functional touch screen/touch shutter/touch focal point selection and it can't shoot 60FPS, etc. but the sensor is 4x larger and so while DR is virtually identical to the Oly at measured ISOs 100-400, it is much greater at higher ISOs.

@Life Recorder, YxaAccording to DPR, the A9 electronic shutter is only one stop slower than a mechanical shutter. That's not much. There are very few scenarios where you will get artifacts that you wouldn't get in some form or another with a mechanical shutter.

@Life recorderThe M43 IBIS is more efficient because there is more room in the mount to move the sensor because it is so small, relatively to the mount. The improvement should not be considered in isolation to the more limited magnification of the smaller sensor:

i.e. a crane that can lift two tons ten metres is not superior to a crane that can lift twenty tons four metres.

You are correct. "The M43 IBIS is more efficient"This is obvious during video where the Oly IBIS looks near identical to a good steadicam, and Sony video is fairly jerky if the person holding the camera moves. One can also find far more 5-15 second sharp handheld exposures taken with an Olympus which goes to show just how much more "efficient" it is.

@Life recorderAgain, please tell me which Panasonic camera has a comparable distortion handling to the A9......so you twist it towards the EM1II...okay...the oly has readout 1/60. The A9 has 1/150. So, the A9 readout (distortion handling) is still 2.5 better than the best m4/3 camera. Give your self a break and stop trolling please....

@josseeeUnless you are admitting you are a troll, point to where anyone said a "Panasonic camera has a comparable distortion handling to the A9"The point was Panasonic put silent shutter on an ILC first, A fact even trolls cannot deny (but they will try to divert the topic to another feature.

As for you other topic, it was Olympus who first released a consumer stills ILC with faster sensor readout (rolling shutter measured at 10ms vs. A7Rii measured at 33ms - even the Sony FS7 was measured at 14ms). Sony followed with the A9 and if IIRC their sensor readout is even faster.

@Life recorder point is that what panasonic had was a good idea with mediocre implementation. All silent shutters so far were crippled by distortion/banding. A9 is the first implementation where you dont have to worry about your subjects moving a bit faster or worrying about artificial light causing banding....first (and so far the only one) REALLY USABLE and worry-free implementation. I reacted to your comment where you tried to say that panasonic did what A9 does a loooong time ago... No my friend, no other camera can do what A9 does. Done. Deal with it...

@josseee is wrong again. The EM-1 mark ii came first. And while very fast moving subjects can still be an issue with both cameras, the E-M1 and the later A9 are both extremely usable.There are a good number of wildlife photos taken with these cameras in the forums. Of course as we already agreed the E-M1 can shoot 60FPS and has better IBIS.Basically as you said, the A9 still can't do many of the things the much cheaper E-M1 mark ii does...though the more expense A9 has a bigger sensor.

Mediocre implemention is a stretching of the facts, for a while they had a state of the art e-shutter before anyone else did (and by a while I mean literally years), and it's still quite usable under many conditions. There's no denying the A9 has the best current iteration of said tech, BUT it's still not completely free of downsides.

Pretty sure even DPR had an article showing how banding can still happen... It's also worth noting a lot of brands like Olympus (and later Pana thru their electromagnetic one) have managed to implement really quiet really well dampened EFC shutters, which while not totally silent are still much quieter than a DSLR's or Sony's older mechanical shutters.

@Liferecorder'Of course as we already agreed the E-M1 can shoot 60FPS and has better IBIS.'

We didn't agree that, you appear to only have read the first sentence of my reply. I told you:

'The improvement should not be considered in isolation to the more limited magnification of the smaller sensor:i.e. a crane that can lift two tons ten metres is not superior to a crane that can lift twenty tons four metres.'

In even simpler terms: whilst the m43 IBIS is more efficient because it has more room to move the sensor, the sensor is smaller and requires magnification to reach the quality of FF sensor so you can't say the Olympus IBIS is superior.

@rubberdials I said..."Of course as we already agreed the E-M1 can shoot 60FPFS"

You replied...We didn't agree that.

Despite your trolling it definitely can shoot 60 FPS, and even though it was introduced long before the A9, it can do things the A9 electronic shutter simply cannot...like shoot 60 FPS RAW files.

And despite your trolling the E-M1 mark II 5 axis IBIS really does perform better than the A9 IBIS...hence we see many sharp 10-15 second handheld shots with the Oly, but few if any from the A9. And also why video with the Oly looks like a steadicam was used while video with the A9 if the camera is moving still looks a bit shaky and jerky. (go ahead an make the "semi trucks have larger engines than sports cars, so the A9 IBIS must be better" argument. it is pretty humorous).

Just received in the past hour - FE 100-400 GM, FE 1.4x TC, VG-C3EM vertical power grip, another NP-FZ100 battery, another Sony 128GB SF-G Series UHS-II SDXC card. Ready to give a spin and cannot wait for the airshow season next year.

Don’t know how to choose what takes the best quality shots when say 9 out of ten galleries are first rate quality.Seems all the manufactures have arrived at the top of their game.Debating about Nikon Canon and the rest is so last decade.

I find it a little disappointing to infer you're saying Pros will only use 35mm format - it isn't true and it's not even the ideal format for all shooting scenarios. This is underlined by your excitement over the A7 - while that was and is a dog of a camera to use, with some very serious flaws [which you acknowledge], there were many other mirrorless cameras on the market that were far more serviceable for serious assignments.

To top it all off you then go on to praise the A6500 - while I'm sure it's a fine camera, it is -shock, horror - APSc. Perhaps that's why it 'wasn't quite there'? A bit of internal logic would be nice.

To each their own, but...In my opinion, a refined body will handle well with its respective lenses. A top level body MUST handle well with the top lenses in its system before it can be called refined. The poor balance and awkward handling of this camera, with lenses like the FE 85mm f/1.4 (yes I have personally tried it, with an a7R3) strongly undermines its serious use. Again, just my 2c. Jan

Magnar, FYI, I am comparing the handling against 1. E-M1.2 and 45mm f1.2, and 2. D850 with 85mm f/1.4. I (personally) find the handling clearly inferior to each of these. But, again, this is just my opinion, and I am happy you enjoy this camera, as I am sure many others will as well. Jan

You know, I'm not even a Sony shooter so I don't often take so much as a glance at the comments section of Sony articles... And I've still seen Jan posting the same petty comment more than once, kinda sad really, unless he's getting paid to astroturf. Further...

" A top level body MUST handle well with the top lenses in its system before it can be called refined. " - Jan

So any zoom longer than 100mm is simply not considered top level glass? Because loads of M4/3 zooms are larger/heavier than the 85/1.4... Plus there's primes for either system smaller than the 85/1.4 too.

More about gear in this article

Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.

At CP+ we sat down with executives from several major manufacturers. Among them was Kenji Tanaka, of Sony, who talked to us about the a7 III as well as its plans to attract more pro shooters – without ignoring APS-C and entry-level customers.

Just moments after its launch at WPPI in Las Vegas, we had the chance to try out some of the Sony a7 III's features. Take a look at the a7 III's performance in Eye AF and Lock-on AF modes compared to the a9.

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.